Joined
·
9,967 Posts
HI Matt, I enjoy your positive enthusiasm for the subject:
As one who is directly involved and who also worked damned hard sometimes quietly sometimes not to get Hornby off its high horse and onto the DCC bandwagon for several years I think that the horrible experience of Select and hornby decoder owners is proof positive that a global standard is very desirable.
quite sophisticated Analog multi-train control and more latterly DCC variants had several false starts over 30 years or so, and if a standards based approach had been followed in those early years, it'd be in a very advanced state right now.
Doug, I really do think that the answer to your question is moot: Digital control would be a fragmented and sad shadow of where it is today without it. Warrants by the way do not cover the firware, but are based on the nature of the physical outputs + the consistencey of a very small part of the the command and communication structure. every firmware change or revision does not invalidate a conformance warrant unless it changes these factors negatively.
To clarify:
Conformant: has been submitted for NMRA testing and passed the tests. a system cannot be called conformant unless its been tested by thenmra themselves.
Compliant: has been self tested and is warranted to comply. a product cannot use the term compliant and the dcc logo unless it meets the standards. if a Mfr does this then the NMRA will get on their case.
The CE and FCC issue.
The standards actually already allow for this and it has been acknowledged for quite some time that the system needs to comply with the local market regulation in which it is sold in order to be compliant or conformant. Removal of the term FCC is a good idea, but its presence has not stopepd any product being certified if it was not to be sold in USA.
FCC cerification is actually less rigid and draconian than CE testing by a country mile.
Why don't many companies go the whole way and do the conformance: basically NMRA is a volunteer organisation and NOT a regulatory body.
Its a volunteer manned organisation so its very structure makes it very difficult.
Timing has been slow and manufacturers who fully understand the specification have peferred to make damned sure it is compliant before release rather than accept an added significant delay due to conformance testing.
Basically the move to create a self test platform by the NMRA was an acknowedgement of this, and when completed will be a pragmatic and practical answer to much of the problem.
Its still under very delayed development but when finalised it will provide a complete test and analysis platform nad the process will require a set of data to be created utilising the self test equipment which would then be duly notarised and registered.
Manufacturers are keen for this to happen and are supporting the move BUT the contractor engaged by the NMRA is a light year behind on delivery. I should add its not going to be a cheap bit of kit either, and will be a stretch for the smaller businesses responsible for much of the positive evolution of DCC accessories!
You should not underestimate the ability of the market and the NMRA, volunteers or not, to act if a Mfr misuses the conformance claim ability - NMRA does not want to be and cannot be a "DCC police" but there are caring and responsible people in every part of the world that can and do act with good success where problems arise.
The problem is only where the arrogance of the manufacturer tries to take advantage of the term DCC and then openly flaunts its specification. This is what Hornby did with its initial releases until eventually, publicity and market forces - largely YOU as users, let it be known that it wasn't going to be accepted.
Yes... there are many who either use both or just prefer compliance only because it doesn't delay them but have you noticed it is also they who often lead the pack in design and feature innovation. NCE, Digitrax, ESU(ecos), almost all EU suppliers except lenz (who is currently at the back of the pack software-wise anyway).
They do it not because they couldn't be conformant (because universally they can...) but because they cannot afford to wait to bring a product to market and lose the timing edge that is critical to all marketing.
Be aware too that you need to be careful what you wish for
.
Standards are actually evolving and WILL change constantly. - what complied yesterday may not tomorrow. good example - the beloved 8 pin plug will be phased out and no longer be a standard.... in favour of a whole suite of new ones - good for the Mfrs, a bitch for DCC modellers for a decade to come I predict!
NMRA is currently working to try to bring the reluctant ones to heel and would love a more complete set of brands who are conformant but is actually comfortable with compliance as long as its properly done
final comments: Compliance and conformance are actually dead easy to achieve.
For decoders there is only the very basic things such as CV29 and a couple of others such as DC/DCCcompatiblity and minor compulsory CV use... interestingly guess which decoder brand fails even this?
Standards are also very narrow and minor in command station terms in that they really only cover the quailty of the waveform and primary issues like voltages at track etc.
The amazing thing is that product so far off spec when released they are not even entitled to be called DCC can EVER be created- and without naming names, both still are techincally well off being "fit for market".
Standards should be throughout: What is truly needed is:
(1) that we vote with our feet and do NOT accept partial solutions such as H's or attitudes such as SK's. - where one product is now conformant because it was in real terms forced to be by market attitude but others are still unfit for sale.
(2) that the standards continue to evolve - Current DCC still revolves around & uses 1980's technology at its core and its way past time for the whole of the standards to be revisited and adopt initiatives that have already been possible for a long time. As a comaprison take a look at the bus specification for ESU's MFX (developed for marklin) and traditional DCC.
(3) Things like long address and aliasing must become part of the standards, as should things like both regulated methods for programming on the main and programming track, unrush currents for sound decoders, absolutely rigid use of higher functions (MRC gaugemaster for example fail to follow standards there) and most of the current "core RPs" (recommended practices) should now become standards, not recommendations.
many of these things are under active consideration, as is the very nature of the DCC bus.
Matthew: You should apply to join the NMRA working Group if you have not already done so. Standards can only work if the energy is applied properly at the roots. It may be frustrating making progress but it can only come from energy applied within. Such things are better done from within than from a soapbox.
Richard
DCCconcepts
PS: I've said my piece on this and similar subjects many times, and the above sums up my feelings. I'm happy to respond to issues where there is value in it, but l don't want to play tennis with the subject for the sake of it.
As one who is directly involved and who also worked damned hard sometimes quietly sometimes not to get Hornby off its high horse and onto the DCC bandwagon for several years I think that the horrible experience of Select and hornby decoder owners is proof positive that a global standard is very desirable.
quite sophisticated Analog multi-train control and more latterly DCC variants had several false starts over 30 years or so, and if a standards based approach had been followed in those early years, it'd be in a very advanced state right now.
Doug, I really do think that the answer to your question is moot: Digital control would be a fragmented and sad shadow of where it is today without it. Warrants by the way do not cover the firware, but are based on the nature of the physical outputs + the consistencey of a very small part of the the command and communication structure. every firmware change or revision does not invalidate a conformance warrant unless it changes these factors negatively.
To clarify:
Conformant: has been submitted for NMRA testing and passed the tests. a system cannot be called conformant unless its been tested by thenmra themselves.
Compliant: has been self tested and is warranted to comply. a product cannot use the term compliant and the dcc logo unless it meets the standards. if a Mfr does this then the NMRA will get on their case.
The CE and FCC issue.
The standards actually already allow for this and it has been acknowledged for quite some time that the system needs to comply with the local market regulation in which it is sold in order to be compliant or conformant. Removal of the term FCC is a good idea, but its presence has not stopepd any product being certified if it was not to be sold in USA.
FCC cerification is actually less rigid and draconian than CE testing by a country mile.
Why don't many companies go the whole way and do the conformance: basically NMRA is a volunteer organisation and NOT a regulatory body.
Its a volunteer manned organisation so its very structure makes it very difficult.
Timing has been slow and manufacturers who fully understand the specification have peferred to make damned sure it is compliant before release rather than accept an added significant delay due to conformance testing.
Basically the move to create a self test platform by the NMRA was an acknowedgement of this, and when completed will be a pragmatic and practical answer to much of the problem.
Its still under very delayed development but when finalised it will provide a complete test and analysis platform nad the process will require a set of data to be created utilising the self test equipment which would then be duly notarised and registered.
Manufacturers are keen for this to happen and are supporting the move BUT the contractor engaged by the NMRA is a light year behind on delivery. I should add its not going to be a cheap bit of kit either, and will be a stretch for the smaller businesses responsible for much of the positive evolution of DCC accessories!
You should not underestimate the ability of the market and the NMRA, volunteers or not, to act if a Mfr misuses the conformance claim ability - NMRA does not want to be and cannot be a "DCC police" but there are caring and responsible people in every part of the world that can and do act with good success where problems arise.
The problem is only where the arrogance of the manufacturer tries to take advantage of the term DCC and then openly flaunts its specification. This is what Hornby did with its initial releases until eventually, publicity and market forces - largely YOU as users, let it be known that it wasn't going to be accepted.
Yes... there are many who either use both or just prefer compliance only because it doesn't delay them but have you noticed it is also they who often lead the pack in design and feature innovation. NCE, Digitrax, ESU(ecos), almost all EU suppliers except lenz (who is currently at the back of the pack software-wise anyway).
They do it not because they couldn't be conformant (because universally they can...) but because they cannot afford to wait to bring a product to market and lose the timing edge that is critical to all marketing.
Be aware too that you need to be careful what you wish for
.Standards are actually evolving and WILL change constantly. - what complied yesterday may not tomorrow. good example - the beloved 8 pin plug will be phased out and no longer be a standard.... in favour of a whole suite of new ones - good for the Mfrs, a bitch for DCC modellers for a decade to come I predict!
NMRA is currently working to try to bring the reluctant ones to heel and would love a more complete set of brands who are conformant but is actually comfortable with compliance as long as its properly done
final comments: Compliance and conformance are actually dead easy to achieve.
For decoders there is only the very basic things such as CV29 and a couple of others such as DC/DCCcompatiblity and minor compulsory CV use... interestingly guess which decoder brand fails even this?
Standards are also very narrow and minor in command station terms in that they really only cover the quailty of the waveform and primary issues like voltages at track etc.
The amazing thing is that product so far off spec when released they are not even entitled to be called DCC can EVER be created- and without naming names, both still are techincally well off being "fit for market".
Standards should be throughout: What is truly needed is:
(1) that we vote with our feet and do NOT accept partial solutions such as H's or attitudes such as SK's. - where one product is now conformant because it was in real terms forced to be by market attitude but others are still unfit for sale.
(2) that the standards continue to evolve - Current DCC still revolves around & uses 1980's technology at its core and its way past time for the whole of the standards to be revisited and adopt initiatives that have already been possible for a long time. As a comaprison take a look at the bus specification for ESU's MFX (developed for marklin) and traditional DCC.
(3) Things like long address and aliasing must become part of the standards, as should things like both regulated methods for programming on the main and programming track, unrush currents for sound decoders, absolutely rigid use of higher functions (MRC gaugemaster for example fail to follow standards there) and most of the current "core RPs" (recommended practices) should now become standards, not recommendations.
many of these things are under active consideration, as is the very nature of the DCC bus.
Matthew: You should apply to join the NMRA working Group if you have not already done so. Standards can only work if the energy is applied properly at the roots. It may be frustrating making progress but it can only come from energy applied within. Such things are better done from within than from a soapbox.
Richard
DCCconcepts
PS: I've said my piece on this and similar subjects many times, and the above sums up my feelings. I'm happy to respond to issues where there is value in it, but l don't want to play tennis with the subject for the sake of it.
